Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[DevilSolution]

 

I'm confused. You were asked to name something real with only supernatural explanations. All of those things are real and (with the possible exception of Boris's hair) have naturalistic explanations. There is nothing supernatural about any of them (not even Boris's tonsure).

 

I don't know what that means. How can "only" and dark matter, for example, be mutually exclusive?

 

My bad, "Dark energy" is currently mutually exclusive to natural or supernatural cause.

 

As it is "real" and undetermined it exists in as or the other until an answer is found.

 

Some of those example might be rather hard to find the answer to.

 

 

 

If we carry on we'll end up at the "first cause" paradigm which as we know is a paradox of logic. So maybe end here?

 

We could carry on for those that dont understand it.

Edited December 20, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

My bad, "Dark energy" is currently mutually exclusive to natural or supernatural cause.

 

Does anyone suggest a supernatural cause? There are a number of natural causes hypothesized, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is ghosts.

 

So there are only natural explanations (I include "we don't yet know" in that set).

[PeterJ]

 

---" If we carry on we'll end up at the "first cause" paradigm which as we know is a paradox of logic. So maybe end here?"

 

This is where physics ends and metaphysics starts. Metaphysics exists precisely because science cannot explain everything. No need to bring religion into it unless we feel like it.

 

The 'first cause' certainly looks like a paradox, but it can be resolved. Not by science, however, for this is a matter of logic and first principles. Science must wait for the university philosophers to get their act together.

 

I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.

Edited December 20, 2015 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The 'first cause' certainly looks like a paradox, but it can be resolved. Not by science, however, for this is a matter of logic and first principles. Science must wait for the university philosophers to get their act together.

 

I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.

The philosophers had a head start on science, got as far as they could and they stopped.

 

You keep claiming there's a solution, but failing to produce it when asked.

Are you going to repeat that pointless exercise?

[DevilSolution]

 

Does anyone suggest a supernatural cause? There are a number of natural causes hypothesized, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is ghosts.

 

So there are only natural explanations (I include "we don't yet know" in that set).

 

Science doesnt say the supernatural doesnt exist, it only applies itself to what is natural. If science cant explain what time is, or what was before the big bang, then those things are supernatural. Not that it shouldn't try. Maybe just accept its limits.

 

P.S if you went on a religious forum you might find people claiming dark matter and energy as proofs of god.....but you dont, so you dont. Neither do i.

[PeterJ]

The philosophers had a head start on science, got as far as they could and they stopped.

 

You keep claiming there's a solution, but failing to produce it when asked.

Are you going to repeat that pointless exercise?

 

Did you ask? Funny,. I haven't posted here for ages.

 

One solution would be nondualism, which denies that anything truly real came into existence in the first place, including time and space.

 

There's more to it, of course. Schrodinger was a fan.

[DevilSolution]

The philosophers had a head start on science, got as far as they could and they stopped.

 

You keep claiming there's a solution, but failing to produce it when asked.

Are you going to repeat that pointless exercise?

 

Philosophers were scientists for the most part and mathematicians, great philosophers are always abstract thinkers so they work well together.

[Strange]

Did you ask? Funny,. I haven't posted here for ages.

 

Yes, you seem to stop posting whenever pushed for answers. And then pop up again a few months later with the same vague unsupported claims.

[ajb]

Science doesnt say the supernatural doesnt exist, it only applies itself to what is natural.

There maybe a tautology here. If we can observe it and measure it then it has to be natural. Then I would say that there is no supernatural and the term is quite vacuous.

 

Moreover, claims of phenomena by 'non-scientists' that are labelled as supernatural either fail to amount to anything, or are explained within science. Often the supernatural is explained by probability theory, known scientific phenomena or human psychology.

 

If science cant explain what time is, or what was before the big bang, then those things are supernatural. Not that it shouldn't try. Maybe just accept its limits.

Well, some of this gets mixed with philosophy. Anwyway, even if it is impossible for us to find the right mathematics to describe some observed physical phenomena it is a big jump to say that something outside of nature is at play. I would even regular that we are still in this tautology of what is natural and what is supernatural.

 

P.S if you went on a religious forum you might find people claiming dark matter and energy as proofs of god.....but you dont, so you dont. Neither do i.

So the moral is not to get your science education from a religious forum!

[PeterJ]

I'm sorry a couple of you guys think that I dodge questions. I don't usually, although sometimes I may feel it isn't worth the effort. I've come across a more sympathetic audiences for ideas the smack of religion. .

 

I've given an answer here as requested, albeit so far it's been ignored. The science-religion discussion is going to be rather shallow if it ignores the philosophical scheme of mysticism and the analytical results of metaphysics. It will end up being an argument about God's existence and the value of Protestantism and go nowhere.

 

It is possible, even probable, that the sceptics are right about the veracity and explanatory power of what they are calling religion, depending on their definition or concept of it, but it will always remain the case that science cannot explain metaphysics. It would be like biology trying to explain chemistry - an upside down approach. So the religion argument is not quite the point and not the crucial deciding factor. In the search for a reductive theory it's where metaphysics begins that science would end, hence the need for two disciplines.

Edited December 21, 2015 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

 

I'm sorry a couple of you guys think that I dodge questions. I don't usually, although sometimes I may feel it isn't worth the effort. I've come across a more sympathetic audiences for ideas the smack of religion. .

 

I've given an answer here as requested, albeit so far it's been ignored. The science-religion discussion is going to be rather shallow if it ignores the philosophical scheme of mysticism and the analytical results of metaphysics. It will end up being an argument about God's existence and the value of Protestantism and go nowhere.

 

It is possible, even probable, that the sceptics are right about the veracity and explanatory power of what they are calling religion, depending on their definition or concept of it, but it will always remain the case that science cannot explain metaphysics. It would be like biology trying to explain chemistry - an upside down approach. So the religion argument is not quite the point and not the crucial deciding factor. In the search for a reductive theory it's where metaphysics begins that science would end, hence the need for two disciplines.

Well, you could rise to the (tacit) challenge and explain it now...

Obviously this "One solution would be nondualism, which denies that anything truly real came into existence in the first place..." seems to be mumbo jumbo, so you would need to do better.

Edited December 21, 2015 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

I think it would be best to read Wiki, or I could recommend various books or even my blog. I certainly would not attempt to explain it from scratch.

 

But here's a few notes.

 

Nondualism states that all positive metaphysical positions are false. This would explain why all such positions are logically absurd and thus why metaphysical problems are undecidable. These problems would be (false) dilemmas created by opposing two positive theories, (e,g the universe begins/does not begin), where neither answer works. To do this is to abuse Aristotle's logic.

 

There is nothing at all contentious about proposing that all such positions are absurd since this is metaphysics 101. The contentious claim is that these positions are absurd because they are false. This is something that cannot be conceded in 'western' thought, because if it were conceded then it would become indistinguishable from 'eastern thought.

 

Still, it is surely telling that nondualism predicts the absurdity of all extreme or positive metaphysical positions, and that no other systematic theory does this.

 

You may feel that it appears to be mumbo jumbo, John, but this is not relevant. It is the philosophical basis for Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Theosophy, esoteric Christianity, advaita Vedanta and other similar traditions, so people who look into it do tend to get past the appearance of mumbo jumbo. .

 

True or not, it represents an explanation for metaphysics. But it is not an easy theory to understand. One would be trying to understand reality.

 

The relevant point here is simply that the natural sciences have nothing to say about this issue. It has to be sorted out in metaphysics (or experience).

[John Cuthber]

Well, apart form the absurd racism of

"This is something that cannot be conceded in 'western' thought, because if it were conceded then it would become indistinguishable from 'eastern thought."

that didn't seem to mean a lot.

In particular

"True or not, it represents an explanation for metaphysics."

So, the best explanation of metaphysics might be true, or it might not, but it doesn't matter.

and yet you claim it's the basis for understanding reality- even though it's not possible to tell if it's right or wrong.

 

That's not really progress- it's just a shrug dressed up in fancy words.

From time to time peole pop up here and breate science for being too difficult to understand- here's a recent case

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92782-a-unified-theory-by-dea-patricia-smegmasterson/

but even they have to accept that, for all it's failings,; science works.

You seem to be saying that if you want to "know" more you have to accept a system where you end up knowing nothing.

 

Is there a circumstance in which that is useful?

[Shelagh]

Science did not come into being to disprove God or religion. The Greeks and Romans studied science to a high level, but did not concern themselves about the veracity of their many gods. That came later when a new religion declared that there was only one God, and thus began the arguments about His existence.

[Strange]

Nondualism states that all positive metaphysical positions are false.

 

Including this statement, presumably.

 

But you have never shown how this rejection has any value; what it can be used for, for example.

[PeterJ]

Well, apart form the absurd racism of

"This is something that cannot be conceded in 'western' thought, because if it were conceded then it would become indistinguishable from 'eastern thought."

that didn't seem to mean a lot.

In particular

"True or not, it represents an explanation for metaphysics."

So, the best explanation of metaphysics might be true, or it might not, but it doesn't matter.

and yet you claim it's the basis for understanding reality- even though it's not possible to tell if it's right or wrong.

 

That's not really progress- it's just a shrug dressed up in fancy words.

From time to time peole pop up here and breate science for being too difficult to understand- here's a recent case

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92782-a-unified-theory-by-dea-patricia-smegmasterson/

but even they have to accept that, for all it's failings,; science works.

You seem to be saying that if you want to "know" more you have to accept a system where you end up knowing nothing.

 

Is there a circumstance in which that is useful?

 

This particular issue is not to do with science. I'm talking about metaphysics. I wonder why you assume I'm bashing science. Why would I do that? I only ever bash scientists who venture outside their field and start making metaphysical pronouncements.

 

By 'true or not' I meant that it would not matter whether we believe it is true or not. it works as a solution for metaphysics. Obviously I did not mean that we cannot establish whether it works.

 

There is a lot of information of this topic freely available. If you want to look into these ideas then google is your friend.

 

The usefulness of this theory is that it allows us to make sense of philosophy and questions like whether the universe begins or not.

 

To make things a little more clear - nondualism can be seen as a meta-metaphysical theory since it would cover psychology, soteriology and other things. As a specifically formal metaphysical theory it would be better, I think, to see it as a neutral metaphysical position. We could see it as a global compatabilism, generalising the solution that many people adopt for freewill/determinism to all other such problems.

 

In short, it dismisses metaphysical dilemmas as category-errors caused by the reification of conceptual categories and a misuse of logic much as Kant proposes. In modern scientific consciousness studies it can appear as 'relative phenomenalism', which sounds a bit more scientific than 'mysticism' or 'perennial philosophy'.

 

I don't want to argue but will try to respond to questions. This is pretty much off-topic, however, so maybe it's best left for elsewhere. The point was simply that these issues cannot be dealt with in the natural sciences.

[John Cuthber]

. This is something that cannot be conceded in 'western' thought, because if it were conceded then it would become indistinguishable from 'eastern thought.

 

 

I wonder why you assume I'm bashing science.

Guess.

[PeterJ]

 

Including this statement, presumably.

 

But you have never shown how this rejection has any value; what it can be used for, for example.

 

The statement is not endorsing a positive position but a neutral one. So, no, this statement is not included.

 

The usefulness of the theory is not the issue. It will be useful if we use it. It is useful to me, far more so than any physical theory, but only because I'm interested in more than just science.,It would be useful in theoretical physics and biology, I believe, but it is is barely known in these disciplines. Scientists tend to respect their academic colleagues in the philosophy faculty, and they seem uninterested in solving problems. I would support the philosophobia expressed by Tyson, Dawkins and their like, who see academic philosophy as a waste of funding and office space.

Guess.

 

Lol. No, I tried and failed. You'll just have to explain. Not everyone sees religion and science and having to be enemies.

[Strange]

 

The statement is not endorsing a positive position but a neutral one. So, no, this statement is not included.

 

The statement "all X are false" is hardly neutral. It is a pretty positive statement of your belief.

 

It would be useful in theoretical physics and biology, I believe, but it is is barely known in these disciplines.

 

Aaaand ... here we go again. We can start the countdown to when you stop posting and blame us for not knowing the answers.

 

How, exactly, would it be useful in theoretical physics and biology?

 

Scientists tend to respect their academic colleagues in the philosophy faculty, and they seem uninterested in solving problems. I would support the philosophobia expressed by Tyson, Dawkins and their like, who see academic philosophy as a waste of funding and office space.

 

As your claims are philosophy, not science, these people you support would dismiss your vague waffle out of hand.

[PeterJ]

Oh boy. Here we go again.

 

---"The statement "all X are false" is hardly neutral. It is a pretty positive statement of your belief."

 

In this case it must be obvious that you are misinterpreting it. It is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of a well-known philosophical fact. Do you really not know that it is the case? If not, then I can understand your scepticism. But just go have a look, it's not a secret.

---"Aaaand ... here we go again. We can start the countdown to when you stop posting and blame us for not knowing the answers."

 

Of course I blame you. It is poor scholarship. You hold strong opinions on a topic you have not studied. This is never a good idea. If you were asking questions rather than arguing I wouldn't blame you but simply respect your interest.

 

"How, exactly, would it be useful in theoretical physics and biology?"

 

it would shed light on evolutionary processes and answer questions about the origin and nature of the universe. It would explain why science cannot find matter when they go looking for it, and in my opinion would help to make sense of nonlocality and other weird phenomena.

 

Please note that this is very well-established and well-developed metaphysical theory, not something I just invented. If you do not know of it then this cannot be blamed on me. Give me a break for goodness sake. You more or less force me to be confrontational when there is no need for it.

 

---"As your claims are philosophy, not science, these people you support would dismiss your vague waffle out of hand."

 

Yes they would, of course, This is because they are not philosophers. If they were, they would see that academic philosophy is currently a waste of time just as they claim, but that there are better ways to do philosophy. They are not complaining about philosophy, just academic philosophy, which is why i can support them.

 

Perhaps one of the mods can post a sticky on the 'Principle of Charity'. It might save a lot if unnecessary arguments.

 

Edit: if you are interested then googling 'science and nonduality' might be revealing. It's a hot topic.

Edited December 21, 2015 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

The statement is not endorsing a positive position but a neutral one. So, no, this statement is not included.

 

The usefulness of the theory is not the issue. It will be useful if we use it. It is useful to me, far more so than any physical theory, but only because I'm interested in more than just science.,It would be useful in theoretical physics and biology, I believe, but it is is barely known in these disciplines. Scientists tend to respect their academic colleagues in the philosophy faculty, and they seem uninterested in solving problems. I would support the philosophobia expressed by Tyson, Dawkins and their like, who see academic philosophy as a waste of funding and office space.

 

 

Lol. No, I tried and failed. You'll just have to explain. Not everyone sees religion and science and having to be enemies.

Why do you see East and West as so different?

 

in particular, why do you accuse all Westerners of not understanding things and, equally daftly, of not accepting "Eastern" though (whatever that might be).

[Strange]

Oh boy. Here we go again.

 

---"The statement "all X are false" is hardly neutral. It is a pretty positive statement of your belief."

 

In this case it must be obvious that you are misinterpreting it. It is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of a well-known philosophical fact. Do you really not know that it is the case? If not, then I can understand your scepticism. But just go have a look, it's not a secret.

 

Can you provide a reference to where I should "go and look"?

 

I have never heard of this "well-known philosophical fact", except from you. Is there a wikiepdia p;age on it? Or something on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

 

Of course I blame you. It is poor scholarship. You hold strong opinions on a topic you have not studied.This is never a good idea. If you were asking questions rather than arguing I wouldn't blame you but simply respect your interest.

 

I am asking questions. As always you are evading them or giving vague, unhelpful answers. Like the following:

 

"How, exactly, would it be useful in theoretical physics and biology?"

 

it would shed light on evolutionary processes and answer questions about the origin and nature of the universe. It would explain why science cannot find matter when they go looking for it, and in my opinion would help to make sense of nonlocality and other weird phenomena.

 

And how exactly would it do that (in ways that the scientific method cannot)?

 

What exactly would it tell us about evolutionary process?

What exactly would it tell us about the origin of the universe? Presumably it would tell us the universe has an origin? What else?

What exactly would it tell us about the nature of the universe?

What exactly would it tell us about why scientists cannot find [dark?] matter? (I assume that is what you are referring to as there is not normally any difficulty finding matter.)

What exactly would it tell us about "nonlocality and other weird phenomena"? And what do you believe is wrong with the current understanding of those things?

 

If you are going to say you don't know the answers to those questions, can you tell us how you can be so sure it will have such a far reaching effect?

[DevilSolution]

There maybe a tautology here. If we can observe it and measure it then it has to be natural. Then I would say that there is no supernatural and the term is quite vacuous.

 

Moreover, claims of phenomena by 'non-scientists' that are labelled as supernatural either fail to amount to anything, or are explained within science. Often the supernatural is explained by probability theory, known scientific phenomena or human psychology.

 

 

Well, some of this gets mixed with philosophy. Anwyway, even if it is impossible for us to find the right mathematics to describe some observed physical phenomena it is a big jump to say that something outside of nature is at play. I would even regular that we are still in this tautology of what is natural and what is supernatural.

 

 

So the moral is not to get your science education from a religious forum!

 

Where do circles exist in reality? are they even real? They must be supernatural unless you can show me a perfect circle in reality. It's strange how supernatural entities have such importance in science.

 

Worth a down vote but not a reply. I do like a good comedy.

Edited December 21, 2015 by DevilSolution

[PeterJ]

Why do you see East and West as so different?

 

in particular, why do you accuse all Westerners of not understanding things and, equally daftly, of not accepting "Eastern" though (whatever that might be).

 

'East' and 'West' are commonly used to describe two different traditions of thought. Have you not come across this distinction before? It is very common. It is also very misleading, but it is often a useful.shorthand for two different approaches.

 

In the West we reject the solution of philosophy that is most common in the East. Heidegger blames Plato for this, dating the loss of the idea of unity in our philosophy to his Academy. But whoever we blame these are two quite different approaches to philosophy.

 

The difference would be that eastern thought encompasses the notion of nonduality and unity and is profoundly optimistic in respect of the possibility of knowledge, while in the west we find philosophy to be a dead end. .

[ajb]

Where do circles exist in reality? are they even real? They must be supernatural unless you can show me a perfect circle in reality. It's strange how supernatural entities have such importance in science.

 

So you now want to equate the supernatural world with the mathematical one? That would be unusual, and not what people usually think of by 'supernatural'.

 

 

 

Worth a down vote but not a reply. I do like a good comedy.

I do not know who down voted you.